PUBLIC R&D AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
SPILLOVERS FROM UNIVERSITY AND COMPANY-BASED
RESEARCH CENTRES
Working Paper No. 104
June 2009
Stephen Roper and Nola Hewitt-Dundas
Warwick Business School’s Small and Medium Sized Enterprise Centre
Working Papers are produced in order to make available to a wider public,
research results obtained by its research staff. The Director of the
CSME, Professor Stephen Roper, is the Editor of the Series. Any
enquiries concerning the research undertaken within the Centre should be
addressed to:
The Director
CSME
Warwick Business School
University of Warwick
Coventry CV4 7AL
e-mail stephen.roper@wbs.ac.uk Tel. 02476 522501
ISSN 0964-9328 – CSME WORKING PAPERS
Details of papers in this series may be requested from:
The Publications Secretary
CSME
Warwick Business School,
University of Warwick,
Coventry CV4 7AL
e-mail sharon.west@wbs.ac.uk Tel. 02476 523692
1
Public R&D and Regional Development:
Spillovers from University and Company-based
Research Centres
Stephen Ropera and Nola Hewitt-Dundasb
a
Centre for Small and Medium Enterprises, Warwick Business School,
University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL,
Email: Stephen.Roper@wbs.ac.uk
b
School of Management, Queen‘s University Belfast, BT7 1NN
Email: nm.hewitt@qub.ac.uk
Abstract:
Public funding of university and company-based R&D centres of excellence is
widespread both in core and more peripheral regions in the hope of generating local
knowledge spillovers. In this paper we examine one such initiative involving the
establishment of 18 publicly funded R&D centres. Based on data from a real-time
monitoring study, we explore the development of the centres‘ external connections.
University-based centres are found to develop more extensive local and extra-regional
connections than company-based centres, with company-based centres most willing to
form new local connections where their partner is either a customer or supplier. Our
results suggest a generally positive message, emphasising the potential for public
R&D investments to generate increased local and extra-regional connectivity. They
also suggest a prioritisation among such investments, however, in order to derive the
maximum benefit for regional economic development.
Acknowledgements:
We are grateful to Invest Northern Ireland for funding the research on which this
paper is based. We also wish to express our thanks to Beth Young for providing
excellent research assistance and to the staff in the Centres of Excellence for
providing time and assistance in undertaking this study. Valuable comments were
received from James Love (Aston Business School). Interpretations and mistakes in
the paper are those of the authors alone.
Key words: Public R&D, regional development, knowledge transfer, Northern
Ireland.
2
PUBLIC R&D AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT: SPILLOVERS FROM
UNIVERSITY AND COMPANY-BASED RESEARCH CENTRES
1. Introduction
Recent thinking on open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003; Chesbrough et al 2006),
buiness eco-systems (Iansiti and Levien, 2004), and the knowledge-based economy
(Cooke and Leydesdorff, 2006) has stressed the importance of external knowledge
sources in stimulating innovation. Empirical studies at the firm-level, provide
confirmatory results, emphasising the role of knowledge networks and partnerships in
shaping firms‘ innovation activity (Veugelers and Cassiman, 1999; Cassiman and
Veugelers, 2002; Love and Roper, 2001, Tether, 2005). From a policy-perspective,
one attempt to foster greater interaction between innovation actors has been through
the establishment of publicly funded research centres (PRCs) with the objective of
stimulating science-industry links and localised knowledge spillovers (Debackere and
Veugelers, 2005). For example, in the US, Feller (2004) demonstrates the importance
of public research universities to economic development, while in the EU, Graversen
et al. (2005) have examined the role of Centres of Excellence in achieving EU
objectives relating to the European Research Area1.
Recent evidence, however, suggests that the producitivity benefits from PRCs
engaging in different types of knowledge transfer activity, and operating in different
organisational contexts, may differ significantly (Graversen et al., 2005). BilbaoOsorio and Rodriguez-Pose (2004), for example, analyse the impact of different forms
of R&D expenditure on innovation (measured as patent applications per capita) across
EU regions. They find that while business expenditure on R&D (BERD) is the sole
driver of innovation in non-peripheral regions, in peripheral regions, both BERD and
higher-education expenditure on R&D (HERD), but not other public R&D, has a
positive effect on innovation. They speculate that the reason for this may be that
university research has a more applied (rather than basic) orientation in peripheral
areas, compensating for a lack of BERD (Fernandez et al., 1996). At a more general
1
Feller (2004) also focuses on the need for universities to maintain a high quality and well resourced
research environment to attract and retain high quality research staff, with the result that ‗states which
are either unable or unwilling to provide the financial support necessary to maintain competitive higher
education systems are likely to fall behind in longer term efforts to develop nationally competitive
knowledge-based economies‘ (p.141).
3
level, recent research by Guellec and van Pottelsberghe (2004) based on 16 OECD
countries, also emphasises the differential returns from different types of R&D
activity2.
Other studies, while stressing the strong spillover benefits of university research
(Anselin et al. 1997, 2000; Fischer and Varga, 2003; Verspagen, 1999) also stress the
differential strength of such spillovers from R&D in different sectors/disciplines as
well as the localised nature of such effects (Audretsch, 1998). For example, evidence
of localised knowledge spillovers suggested by pharmaceuticals firms‘ location of
their R&D facilities near to leading university research departments. By contrast, for
firms in the chemicals or vehicles sectors, such co-location is less evident
(Abramovsky and Simpson, 2008).
The absorptive capacity of local firms may also influence the effective contribution of
knowledge spillovers to economic growth3. Guellec and van Pottelsberghe (2004), for
example, stress the role of BERD in shaping firms‘ absorptive capacity, while
Veugelers and Cassiman (1999) suggest that firms undertaking in-house R&D benefit
more from external information sources than firms which have no in-house R&D
activity (Roper et al., 2000; Hewitt-Dundas, 2009). An essentially similar point is
made by Oughton et al. (2002) who consider what they call the ‗regional innovation
paradox‘, which they define as ‗the apparent contradiction between the comparatively
greater need for firms to invest in innovation in lagging regions and their relatively
lower capacity to absorb public funds earmarked for the promotion of innovation‘
(p.98).
Our objective here is to examine the new connectivity that arises from PRCs and
whether these are influenced by the organisational context in which the PRC is
operating, i.e. whether the PRC is university or company based. Our study is based on
2
Specifically, they found a long-term elasticity of multi-factor productivity (MFP) with respect to
BERD of 0.13, foreign R&D of 0.45 and public R&D of 0.17. However, Lichtenberg and Siegel (1991)
also observed a strong positive correlation between privately funded R&D and TFP growth; however
this was not the case for publicly funded R&D. This was confirmed by Billings et al. (2004), who
found that publicly funded R&D is significantly less productive than privately funded R&D.
3
Zahra and George (2002) provide a comprehensive review of organisational applications of the
concept of ACAP to innovation (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Veugelers, 1997), best practice
(Szulanski, 1996), research productivity (Cockburn and Henderson, 1998), and IT adoption (Boynton,
Zmud and Jacobs, 1994).
4
a real-time monitoring exercise of the developing patterns of connectivity in a group
of UK PRCs established since 2002. This localised, and more detailed approach,
complements the more abstract but broadly based analysis of Guellec and van
Pottelsberghe (2004), providing insights into the mechanisms by which local
knowledge transfers actually occur, and how these are constrained or enabled by
PRCs‘ organisational context. Our paper also helps to answer the need highlighted in
Link and Siegel (2005a) for more specific micro-evidence on the operation of
technology transfer initiatives in different national and regional contexts.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2 outlines the conceptual
approach and hypotheses, drawing on Boyne (2002) and focussing on the contrasting
organisational contexts of company-based and university-based PRCs. Section 3
reviews the policy context for the empirical study and profiles the group of PRCs
considered in our study. Section 4 reports our main empirical results and Section 5
draws out the key methodological and policy conclusions.
2. Literature and Hypotheses
In this section we consider the distinctive characteristics of public and private sector
organisations and the implications for the profile of external connections that might
develop from university-based and company-based PRCs. Boyne (2002), for example,
suggests that despite some tendency towards convergence, contrasts between public
and private sector organisations generally exist along four dimensions: organisational
environment, goals, structures and values. In terms of organisational environment,
Boyne argues that public sector organisations face: more diverse stakeholders than
private sector organisations generating potential goal ambiguity (see also
Jarzabkowski, 2005); greater pressures to be responsive to a range of stakeholder
needs perhaps contributing to greater instability; and, less competitive pressure than
that facing private sector organisations.
These contrasts are clearly reflected in the contrasting environments of universitybased and company-based PRCs. University-based PRCs may face conflicting
5
expectations of their potential cultural, social and economic contribution4, while for
company-based PRCs shareholders represent the primary interest group with the more
focussed goal of sustained competitiveness. This less diverse stakeholder group and
firms‘ more focused organisational goals are likely to be associated with a more
reluctant approach to knowledge sharing to ensure that proprietary knowledge is
protected (Bozeman, 2000)5. University-based PRCs on the other hand, may be
characterised by more openness to their associated stakeholder communities
motivated by an ethos of ‗open science‘ (European Commission, 2004). We therefore
anticipate ceteris paribus that:
Proposition 1: Connectivity: University-based PRCs will establish a greater
number of new external connections than company-based PRCs.
Although the organisational environment of universities and companies vary
markedly, it is likely that in a PRC, with an emphasis on knowledge generation, the
commonality between university-based and company-based PRCs may be greater.
PRCs‘ external connections can play two distinct roles. First, they may be an intrinsic
part of the knowledge generation process enabling knowledge co-creation. Second,
they may be part of PRCs knowledge exploitation or value added generating
activities, reflecting the contribution of research outputs to innovation (Katz and
Martin, 1997; David et al 1988). According to Rothwell (1994, p.22), for example,
innovation involves ‗horizontal linkages such as collaborative pre-competitive
research, joint R&D ventures and R&D-based strategic alliances, i.e. innovation is
becoming more of a networking process‘. Rothwell refers to this model of innovation
as ‗systems integration and networking‘, while Chesbrough (2003) terms it ‗open
innovation‘, with external knowledge seen as important in reducing development
time, and reducing the risk and cost of development6.
4
For example, the UK 2003 Higher Education White Paper (The Future of Higher Education, DfES,
2003) emphasised that ‗Universities and colleges are key drivers … both economically and in terms of
the social and cultural contribution they make‘.
5
For example, Dunning (1993) in examining the knowledge transfer activities of multinational
enterprises comments that deliberate knowledge transfers will only occur where plants perceive there to
be a direct benefit: i.e. ‗Where the improvement of local supply capability is critical to the
competitiveness of the purchasing company... then it may pay the company to invest resources in
upgrading the efficiency of its suppliers‘ Dunning (1993, p.456).
6
This approach stands in stark contrast to the ‗closed innovation‘ model whereby organisations depend
solely on in-house R&D with very limited inter-organisational knowledge sharing.
6
For both company-based and university-based PRCs knowledge co-production with
other organisations as part of their R&D or knowledge generation activities are
therefore likely to be important. For university-based PRCs, however, external
connectivity is likely to be more important as part of their innovation or exploitation
activities than for company-based PRCs reflecting the diversity of stakeholder
interests in university-based PRCs and the open science ethos7. This leads to our
second proposition relating to the diversity of PRC‘s external partners:
Proposition 2: Linkages Pattern – University-based PRCs will engage with
a broader range of external partners than company-based PRCs.
With significant public sector investment in the PRCs, it is important to understand
not only the extent of external links which create the potential for knowledge
spillovers, and the range of external actors with which this activity occurs, but also
their spatial distribution. Research on the role of proximity in the transfer of
knowledge suggests that in general terms ‗agents that are spatially concentrated
benefit from knowledge externalities. Short distances literally bring people together,
favour information contacts and facilitate the exchange of tacit (implicit/unable to
codify) knowledge‘ (Boschma, 2005, p.69). Other research, however, suggests that as
cognitive proximity – the common expertise and knowledge base - increases the
importance of physical proximity may decrease (Hewitt-Dundas, 2009). For firms,
competitive pressures may lead to hollowing-out and a focus on core-competencies
limiting cognitive proximity and emphasising physical co-location, an influence
which will be reinforced by the geographical concentration of supply chains. Market
pressures are likely to be less important for universities, allowing a broader cognitive
base to be maintained and the potential for greater cognitive proximity with external
partners. This suggests our third proposition:
7
It is also possible that in some instances Universities may have a financial motive in forming external
links which may result in them focusing on specific industrial partners, particularly where research is
applied and commercial technologies may result (Link and Scott, 2005). In such a situation, the
potential number of external partners may be restricted.
7
Proposition 3: Knowledge Profile – Company-based PRCs‘ external
connections will be more locally concentrated than those of university-based
PRCs.
3. Programme Overview
The research centres considered here were established with support from Northern
Ireland (NI) government in 2002 as part of the Centres of Excellence programme, and
with the objective of contributing to regional competitiveness8. A total of eighteen
research centres (eight university and ten company-based PRCs) were established as a
result of two competitive calls for proposals during 2002 (Table 1). Managed by
Invest NI – the Regional Development Agency (RDA) for Northern Ireland – the
Centres received public funding of £34.7m (30.0 per cent) matched by an additional
£79.7m from the Centres‘ host organisations over a three-year funding period. Figure
1 illustrates the trend in centre employment and expenditure with total employment
peaking in early 2005 at the end of the grant supported period.
The ten company-based PRCs accounted for 40.3 per cent of total expenditure and
received 32.0 per cent of grant aid. The eight university centres on the other hand
received 68.0 per cent of programme funding and made up 59.7 per cent of total
spending. The difference between the breakdown of the number of centres and that of
expenditure and grant support is due to the larger average size of the university
centres (£8.5m compared to £4.6m) and the higher level of grant support they
received (50 per cent as opposed to the 20-25 per cent received by the company-based
PRCs). The significance of the programme for Northern Ireland is suggested by the
fact that the establishment of the university-based PRCs increased higher education
R&D by around a fifth and the company-based PRCs added around a tenth to business
R&D in the region (Source: DETI, 2005).
As a result of the competitive and reactive nature of the support programme the
PRC‘s sectoral coverage was diverse and unrepresentative of all business R&D in
Northern Ireland. For example, service-sector R&D is under-represented in the
programme with only one service sector PRC accounting for 11.3 per cent of
8
Specifically: ‗The RTD Centres of Excellence programme supports the establishment of R&D centres
to stimulate leading edge, industrially exploitable and commercially focused research which will
demonstrably improve the competitiveness of Northern Ireland industry,‘ (Invest NI, 2003).
8
programme spend, compared to 24 per of regional business R&D in 2002 (Table 1)9.
In terms of manufacturing, pharmaceuticals was over-represented in the programme,
accounting for around 12.3 per cent of manufacturing BERD in the region in 2002 but
around a third of programme expenditure10.
In relation to the type of R&D being undertaken in the PRCs, and therefore having the
potential to be transferred to other organisations, each PRC was undertaking a range
of different research activities spanning the normal basic, applied and developmental
distinction (Table 1)11. Organisationally, differences were also evident in the strategic
role of the PRCs within their host companies and universities. For example,
university-based PRC.5, sits alongside an internationally recognised centre for basic
research in environmental technologies with the aim of developing new
commercially-relevant, environmental ‗tools‘ based on this research. As PRC.5‘s
project proposal suggested:
‗The ‗Tools‘ concept… and a single research to commercialisation route
dedicated to environmental issues provides significant efficiencies in
implementation. The tools planned will be real working tools that employ
leading-edge technology that companies would use in-house‘.
University-based PRC.1 was adopting a different model, basing its knowledge
transfer activity on a set of leading practice procedures/ software development models
originating in a US partner university. Hence:
‗CMMI… is used a lot in commercial business, like the financial sector and
the insurance sector and… we are finding that a number of companies in the
9
Four PRCs are in the (broadly defined) pharmaceutical sector (1 university, 3 company); 8 PRCs are
in the engineering sector (3 university and 5 company); while the remaining six PRCs, (4 university
and 2 company) span software (2), advanced materials (1), food manufacturing (1), bio-technology (1)
and environmental technologies (1).
10
R&D spend in the company-based PRCs was also notably more capital intensive than R&D spending
in general, 33.2 per cent compared to 8.0 per cent (DETI, 2003, Table 2.5). Similarly 7.3 per cent of
regional higher education R&D was capital spending in 2002 (DETI, 2003, Table 32.1, p.23) compared
to 27.8 per in the university-based PRCs.
11
Standardly, R&D activity is divided into three broad categories as follows: Basic R&D which is
generally curiosity led research activity undertaken primarily to advance of scientific knowledge
without any specific practical application; Applied R&D undertaken to advance scientific knowledge
but with some specific practical application in view; Developmental R&D (or ‗experimental research‘)
which focuses on the practical production or installation of new materials, products, processes, systems
or services, or how to improve those already produced or installed.
9
UK are required to have this standard in place. There are probably four or five
companies in NI that have this standard in place and it has been very
expensive for them to achieve it because up to now they have had to source the
expertise from outside NI. … With that in mind it was decided that we would
set up a Centre of Excellence and as part of that we would provide that service
to the local industry.‘
Among the company-based PRCs there were also marked differences in their role and
aspirations. Two PRCs (No. 13, 14) were an organic part of their host firms‘
operations and, in physical and operational terms, were virtually indistinguishable
from the firms‘ other activities. Other company-based PRCs were clearly identifiable
units, focussed purely on developmental research (i.e. new product or service
development) and/or more applied research activity (i.e. the development of new
product platforms).
4. Data and Methods
The data used in this paper is derived from two main sources. First, each PRC
supported by the programme was asked to complete a detailed email or postal
questionnaire every four months between February 2004 and September 2006. This
provided regular quantitative data on the level and type of R&D activity conducted by
each PRC, their development of links to external partners and their commercialisation
activities. An overall response rate of 75 per cent was achieved with all but one PRC
providing relatively regular feedback. Second, in-depth face-to-face interviews were
conducted with each PRC on an irregular basis over the 2004 to 2006 period to
validate data being returned in their questionnaires and follow-up issues of particular
interest.
Data on the external connection established by the PRCs comes primarily from the
former of these two sources with data being collected on the identity, location and
ownership of partner organisations (Table 2). On the basis of a narrative description
provided by the PRCs each external connection was classified into one of four
categories:
10
Knowledge partners – these were characterised by a two-way flow of
knowledge, e.g. through formal or informal joint ventures or collaborative
R&D projects. These included the formation of collaborative R&D
partnerships as part of European funding schemes (e.g. Framework
Programmes) as well as more informal R&D collaborations12. These
collaborative relationships accounted for 42.4 per cent of PRCs external
connections.
Knowledge suppliers – these links were characterised by a more unidirectional transfer of knowledge from a PRC to an external organisation.
These included Knowledge Transfer Partnerships as well as more informal
relationships such as consultancy type activities. This type of linkage
accounted for 17.2 per cent of all the PRCs external connections.
Supply-chain partners - these were links along the supply-chain to either
customers or suppliers and typically involved new commercial contracts to
supply products, design or testing services or prototype products. Of the 384
new external connections established by the PRCs (28.9 per cent) during the
study period were supply-chain partnerships.
Network partners - membership of network organisations such as industry
associations or other membership organisations. This type of relationship
accounted for around 11.5 per cent of all of the PRCs‘ external relationships.
Our empirical results presented in the next section compares the profile of these
different types of connection for the university-based and company-based PRCs and
the extent to which these conform to the propositions outlined earlier.
12
PRC.9 described how this type of relationship worked out in one project: ‗One of the projects that we
did was a brand new vehicle and there was a whole host of new partners involved in that project. They
were new partners in terms of the Centres of Excellence project. There is a company… in Coventry….
We had a partnership agreement with them and selected them as a benchmarking partner for the
development of our new vehicles... During the project they came to us at various strategic points along
the project and helped us with the design process and the timing plans.‘
11
5. Empirical Results
Proposition 1 suggests that because of contrasting organisational priorities and
competitive pressures, university-based PRCs might be expected to have more
extensive – i.e. greater absolute numbers - of external connections than companybased PRCs. Our data provides strong evidence in support of this proposition. First,
the eight university-based PRCs identified a total of 286 new external connections
during the study process, i.e. an average of 35.8 connections per PRC compared to 9.8
for each of the ten company-based PRCs (Table 2). Even allowing for the larger size
of the university-based PRCs13, this suggests they developed almost double the
number of external connections than that of the company-based PRCs. Second,
despite the fact that there were a greater number of company-based PRCs in the
programme (ten compared to eight university-based PRCs) the group of universitybased PRCs had more external connections in each location, partner type and
ownership type than the company-based PRCs14 (Table 2).
The nature of the PRC relationship with external partners, as well as their location, is
also important in determining the extent of local or regional benefits. Connections to
suppliers and customers, for example, are likely to be important in determining the
potential benefits from rent-based spillovers15 while knowledge transfer and
knowledge supplier relationships may be more important in shaping pure knowledge
spillovers16 (Beugelsdijck and Cornet, 2001). The characteristics of the external
connections of the university and company-based PRCs differed markedly (Tables 3
and 4). For university-based PRCs, technology partnerships were most common,
accounting for almost half of all external links formed. These partnerships involved a
two-way flow of knowledge and in many instances included a formal contractual
relationship for the co-creation of knowledge. By contrast, company-based PRCs‘
external connections were most often formed with customers or suppliers (48.6 per
cent of all external links) although technology partnerships were also common (27.0
13
Based on R&D expenditure, the university-based PRCs developed an average of 34.6 knowledge and
technology links with average R&D expenditure of £8.5m, i.e. 4.2 linkages per £1m investment. The
company-based PRCs averaged £4.6m, forming 2.1 linkages per £1m R&D investment.
14
The single exception here is that the group of company-based PRCs had more supply-chain links
than the university-based PRCs- although the difference was relatively insignificant.
15
Rent based spillovers arise because input prices do not fully reflect improvements in quality resulting
from R&D (Griliches, 1979).
16
Pure knowledge spillovers occur when researchers use the results of someone else‘s research to
benefit their own (Griliches, 1979).
12
per cent). Uni-directional knowledge transfers, i.e. knowledge transfer relationships
and links to business networks, were however much more common among universitybased PRCs accounting for approximately a third of all university external
connecttions as compared to around a fifth of links by company-based PRCs. Our
results therefore provide support for Proposition 2, which suggested that universitybased PRCs would be more likely to be engaged in technology sharing relationships17.
In relation to the location of external partners, around a third of the connections
reported were with organisations within the region (Table 2), an average of 7.0 local
linkages per PRC (14.3 external). The geographical profile of PRCs‘ partners differed
significantly, however, with company-based PRCs having a stronger bias towards
local connections and university-based PRCs having proportionately more
international connections (Tables 2 - 4). Indeed, almost three-quarters of university
connections were extra-regional compared to around half of the partners of companybased PRCs (Table 4). University-based PRCs therefore had more extensive networks
of connections outside rather than inside the host region. This provides support for
Proposition 3 that company-based PRCs‘ external connections would be more locally
concentrated than those of university-based PRCs.
5. Conclusions and discussion
Comparing the patterns of external connectivity developed by a group of new,
publicly-funded, university-based and company- based PRCs suggests three main
empirical results. First, the university-based PRCs in our sample have established
significantly larger average numbers of new external connections than the companybased PRCs across the whole range of locations and linkage types both on average
and relative to their level of R&D investment18. This is consistent with other evidence
which suggests the strong contribution to economic development of university
research (Feller, 2004). Second, company-based PRCs have a bias towards
knowledge/technology sharing relationships rather than knowledge/technology
transfer relationships. Further, company-based PRCs are relatively more likely to
form technology transfer relationships with suppliers or customers. Third, the
17
χ2 tests as follows between university and company-based PRCs: χ2(1) =4.800, ρ=0.028.
The company-based PRCs explained this pattern in terms of increases in the intensity of competition,
their protection of IP and the risk of reverse engineering.
18
13
formation of external links by the PRCs is not constrained by proximity. Physical
closeness of partners does not appear to be a pre-requisite in knowledge sharing or
knowledge transfer relationships. This is particularly the case for University-based
PRCs with almost three-quarters of all connections being formed with partners outside
the region. Similarly, for company-based PRCs external connections are more likely
to occur outside the region.
In general terms our results are positive, suggesting the potential catalytic role of
public investments in PRCs as a means of stimulating R&D and innovation activity.
This is evident in the substantial leverage achieved by the public investment in the
R&D centres considered here, and in the extensive network of new connections they
developed. Significant differences emerge, however, between the new external
connections developed by university and company-based PRCs, with university PRCs
more likely than company-based PRCs, to engage in both knowledge sharing and the
co-creation of knowledge as well as knowledge transfer activities. The suggestion is
that knowledge spillovers from university-based PRCs are likely to be greater than
those from company-based PRCs (Anselin et al. 1997, 2000; Fischer and Varga, 2003;
Verspagen, 1999). Concerns about IP protection seem to be particularly important in
limiting the external connections developed by the company-based PRCs. One
company-PRC (PRC.10) operating in a mature industry commented:
‗We don‘t actively go out to give papers these days. We would have given
papers and we would have written papers in the journals of… technology in the
past, but we don‘t do that anymore. We are too close to the market in these
things. The whole industry has become more commercial and secretive… people
don‘t want to meet formally these days, just because of the extra pressures you
are under. I suppose you could say we are in a declining industry, so we are all
fighting to get our market share, and we have been reasonably successful. We
have grown quite a bit; where as a lot of… companies would have gone down.‘
Similar pressures were also evident for a PRC operating in electronics (PRC.12):
‗The nature of our business is that we would typically patent or publish
something that can be reverse engineered, externally. Hence what we would do
is provide a patent protection or if we felt it was technically of benefit to the
wider industry we would sometimes go along to a conference. However, nothing
within this centre can be reverse engineered. Hence publishing or
communicating externally creates a disadvantage to us as an operations facility
so we keep it quiet. So our people are one of our best kept secrets.‘
14
Ameliorating this type of concern, perhaps by supporting IP protection, may facilitate
greater knowledge spillovers from company-based PRCs. As the quote from PRC.12
illustrates, however, even this type of support is unlikely to overcome competitive
pressures for secrecy in many situations.
From a regional development perspective, our results also emphasise the difficulty of
capturing locally the wider economic benefits of public investments in PRCs,
particularly where the region is small and the absorptive capacity of local firms is at
best uncertain (Bilbao-Osorio and Rodriguez-Pose 2004; Oughton et al., 2002). For
example, as one of the university-based PRCs commented (PRC.3):
‗Because of the highly technical nature of what we do there isn‘t a huge industry
within NI so we are very much an international Centre. We really do need to get
out and about. In California, Germany or Taiwan, they have a massive industry
on the doorstep, which we don‘t have in Northern Ireland.‘
Similar comments were made by university-based PRC.8:
‗Local companies just aren‘t necessarily geared up or ready for the type of
technology that we are developing. There is also a global issue pertaining to how
you take Nanotechnology that we can do in the laboratory and apply it to an
industrial situation and an industrial product.‘
The scale and capability of the local supply base in NI was also an issue for some of
the company-based PRCs in developing local supply contracts. PRC.14, for example,
commented that:
‗There really isn‘t any other… contractor in NI except for the lower level of
some machining... If we are going into some R&D work generally, we might
subcontract that into the local community, but there is really no design and we
would order all the complicated and high cost equipment from a variety of sub
sources.‘
The issues faced by our PRCs in developing local connectivity reflect the concerns of
Feller (2004) in his assessment of regional R&D investment strategies based on
picking winners, i.e. with an emphasis which has ‗moved in somewhat predictable
fashion from microelectronics to biotechnology, telecommunications and information
technology to, most recently, nanotechnology‘ (p.145). These technologies, he argues,
may bear little relation to the current needs of the local economy limiting their
positive effects and, as Guellec and van Pottlesberghe (2004) suggest, may indeed
15
have a negative influence by diverting productive and institutional resources which
could otherwise have been employed elsewhere.
In summary, while our results do suggest the value of public support for PRCs in
generating new knowledge and knowledge diffusion, they also highlight the
difficulties of capturing the potential benefits locally. The reactive funding approach
adopted in the Centres of Excellence Programme considered here tended to exacerbate
these issues, creating a diverse group of PRCs some of which had only weak
technological synergy with regional firms. As a result in many instances the wider
benefits of the programme were realised outside the region as PRCs were unable to
identify suitable regional partners. More recent policy developments based around the
notion of Competence Centres - i.e. ―structured, long-term R&D collaboration in a
strategically important area between academia, industry and the public sector‘19 may help to create a more effective bridge between new PRCs and the technological
development needs of local firms20.
19
Monteny, F (2008) ‗COMPERA – Some Experiences‘, presentation to the Compera Workshop on
CRCs, Dusseldorf, February 2009.
20
The longest established European Competence Centres are the Swedish Competence Centres which
were established in 1995 and evaluated in detail (Vinnova, 2004). The evaluation concluded ―the
Swedish competence centres programme is a relevant and effective instrument that builds the people
and networks needed for industrial competitiveness, tunes universities towards socio-economic
needs… and produces significant social and economic value… In sum: the argument for competence
centres is overwhelming‖. (pp. 21-22).
16
Figure 1: Employment and Expenditure by University and Company-based Centres
A dju sted Employmen t (in FT E)
(a) Employment
500
400
300
200
100
0
Feb- May 04 Jun- Sep 04
Oct- Jan 05 F eb- May 05 Jun- Sep 05
Oct- Jan 06 Feb- May 06 Jun- Sep 06
University
188.0
177.5
175.6
196.9
202.3
188.3
190.3
170.8
C ompany
312.1
319.3
309.8
306.4
302.8
298.5
293.0
278.0
R eporting Period
Adjusted Income (in £000)
(b) Expenditure
16000
12000
8000
4000
0
Feb-May 04
Jun-Sep 04
Oct-Jan 05
Oct-Jan 06
Feb-May 06
Jun-Sep 06
University
7792
6008
4196
Feb-May 05 Jun-Sep 05
5067
3682
3881
4449
5550
Company
7431
6945
8787
8173
6480
6192
6372
6228
Reporting Period
Source: Centre Monitoring Returns
17
Table 1: Profile of R&D Centres
PRC
No.
Budget
£m
Subject Focus
Host Organisation
Types of R&D being Undertaken
● Major Focus
○ Minor Element
Basic
Applied Experimental
R&D
R&D
Development
1
1.52
Software Process Improvement
University
●
●
2
0.95
Technology Start-up & Incubation
University
○
●
3
37.76
Electronic Communication Technologies
University
●
●
○
4
4.20
Medical Polymers
University
○
●
○
5
3.95
Environmental Monitoring Technologies
University
●
●
6
4.00
Functional Genomics
University
●
7
3.65
Aeronautical Technologies
University
○
●
○
8
11.65
Nanotechnology
University
○
●
○
9
2.71
Automotive Engineering
Locally-owned SME
●
10
4.71
Food Research and Development
Locally-owned firm
●
11
3.68
Electric Power Engineering
MNE operation
○
12
7.97
Recording Media Substrate
MNE operation
●
13
4.99
Mobile Software Systems
MNE operation
14
4.50
Electrical Engineering Test Centre
MNE operation
○
●
15
2.89
Scientific Cameras
Locally-owned SME
○
●
16
3.14
Controlled Drug Delivery
MNE operation
○
●
17
7.03
Proteomics
Locally-owned firm
○
●
18
4.15
Speciality Pharmaceuticals
Locally-owned SME
●
●
●
18
Table 2: Technology Transfer Links of University and Company-Based Centres
Total
UniversityCompanybased
based
n
%
n
%
n
%
A. Partner Location
Northern Ireland
GB and Ireland
Rest of World
Total
B. Type of Relationship
2-way Technology Partner
Customer/ Supplier
1-way Knowledge Transfer
Network
Total
C. Ownership of Partner
Public
Private
Non-Profit
Total
126
134
124
384
32.8
34.9
32.3
100.0
89
91
106
286
31.1
31.8
37.1
100.0
37
43
18
98
37.8
43.9
18.4
100.0
163
111
66
44
384
42.4
28.9
17.2
11.5
100
135
60
57
34
286
47.2
21.0
19.9
11.9
100
28
51
9
10
98
28.6
52.0
9.2
10.2
100
108
220
56
384
28.1
57.3
14.6
100.0
94
143
49
286
32.9
50.0
17.1
100.0
14
77
7
98
14.3
78.6
7.1
100.0
Notes: χ2 tests as follows for university v company-based centres: partner location,
χ2(2) =11.922, ρ=0.000; type of relationship, χ2(3) =35.416, ρ<0.000; ownership of
partner, χ2(2) =24.355, ρ=0.000.
19
Table 3: R&D Centre External Linkages: Average Number of Links Per Centre
Technology Customer/ Knowledge
Total
Partner
Supplier
Transfer
Network
A. University-based
35.8
16.9
7.5
7.1
4.3
centres
Northern Ireland
11.1
3.8
4.5
1.9
1.0
Outside Region
24.6
13.1
3.0
5.3
3.3
B. Company-based
9.8
2.8
5.1
0.9
1.0
centres
Northern Ireland
3.7
1.0
1.8
0.3
0.6
Outside Region
6.1
1.8
3.3
0.6
0.4
20
Table 4: R&D Centre External Linkages: By Type of Linkage and Location
Type of Linkage
Technology Customer/ Knowledge
Partner
Supplier
Transfer
Network
n
%
%
%
%
%
A. Universitybased centres
Northern Ireland
Outside Region
B. Companybased centres
Northern Ireland
Outside Region
286
100.0
47.2
21.0
19.9
11.9
89
197
31.1
68.9
33.7
53.3
40.4
12.2
16.9
21.3
9.0
13.2
98
100.0
28.6
52.0
9.2
10.2
37
61
37.8
62.2
27.0
29.5
48.6
54.1
8.1
9.8
16.2
6.6
21
Bibliography
Abramovsky, L and Simpson, H. (2008) ‗Geographic proximity and firm-university
innovation linkages: evidence from Great Britain‘, Centre for Market and Public
Organisation, University of Bristol, Working Paper No. 08/200, ISSN 1473-625X
Acs, Z. J. and Plummer, L.A. (2005) Penetrating the knowledge filter in regional
economies, The Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 39, pp. 439-456
Anselin L, Varga A and Acs Z (1997) ‗Local geographic spillovers between
university research and high technology innovations‘ Journal of Urban Economics,
42,422-448.
Anselin L, Varga A and Acs Z (2000) ‗Geographic and sectoral characteristics of
academic knowledge externalities‘, Papers in Regional Science, 79,435-443.
Audretsch DB (1998) ‗Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity‘, Oxford
Review of Economic Policy, 14,(2),18-29.
Beugelsdijck S and Cornet M (2001) ‗How far do they reach? The localisation of
industrial and academic spillovers in the Netherlands‘, Centre discussion paper 200-7.
Bilbao-Osorio B and Rodriguez-Pose A (2004) ‗From R&D to innovation and
economic growth in the EU‘, Growth and Change, 35,434-455.
Billings BA, Musazi BGN and Moore JW (2004) ‗The effects of funding source and
management ownership on the productivity of R&D‘, R&D Management, 34,(3),281294.
Boschma, R A. (2005) Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. Regional
Studies 39 (1):61-74.
Boyne, GA. (2002) Public and Private Management: What's the Difference? Journal
of Management Studies, 39 (1), p.97-122..
Boynton A, Zmud R and Jacobs G (1994) ‗The Influence of IT management practice
on IT use in large organisations‘, MIS Quarterly, 18,299-320.
Bozeman B (2000) ‗Technology Transfer and public policy: A review of research and
theory‘, Research Policy, 29,627-655.
Cassiman B and Veugelers R (2002) ‗R&D cooperation and spillovers: some
empirical evidence from Belgium‘, The American Economic Review, 92,(4),11691184.
Chesbrough H (2003) ‗Open Innovation’, Harvard Business School Press, Harvard
Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (eds.) (2006) Open Innovation:
Researching a new paradigm, Oxford University Press
22
Chesborough, H W (2006) Open Innovation: a new paradign for understanding
industrial innovation. Edited by H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke and J. West,
Open Innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cockburn L and Henderson H (1998) ‗Absorptive capacity, co-authoring behaviour
and the organisation of research in the drug industry‘, Journal of Industrial
Economics, 46,157-183.
Cohen WM and Levinthal DA (1990) ‗Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on
learning and innovation‘, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35,128-152.
Cooke P and Leydesdorff L (2006) ‗Regional development in the knowledge-based
economy: the construction of advantages‘, Journal of Technology Transfer, 31,(1),5–
15.
David, P., Mowery, D., and Steinmuller, W. (1988) ‗The economic analysis of
payoffs from basic research—An examination of the case of particle physics
research‘, CEPR Publication No. 122, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Stanford
University, California.
Debackere K and Veugelers R (2005) ‗The role of academic technology transfer
organizations in improving industry science links‘, Research Policy, 34(3),321-342.
DETI (2003) ‗Northern Ireland Research and Development Statistics, 2002’,
November,1-30.
DETI (2005) ‗Northern Ireland Research and Development Statistics, 2004’,
November,1-26.
Dfes (2003) The Future of Higher Education, London. Available at:
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/hegateway.
Dunning JH (1993) ‗Multinational Enterprise and the Global Economy’, Wokingham,
Addison-Wesley.
European Commission (2004) ‗Expert group report - Management of intellectual
property in publicly-funded research organisations: Towards European Guidelines’,
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities EUR
20915
Feller I (2004) ‗S&T-Based Economic Development and the University‘, Economic
Development Quarterly, 18,(2),138-150.
Fernandez E, Junquera B and Vazquez CJ (1996) ‘Government Support for R&D:
The Spanish Case‘, Technovation, 16,59-66.
Fischer M and Varga A (2003) ‗Spatial Knowledge Spillovers and University
Research: Evidence from Austria‘, Annals of Regional Science 37,303-322.
23
Graversen EK, Schmidt EK and Langberg K (2005) ‗Dynamic Research Enviroments:
A Development Model‘, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
16,(8),1498-1511.
Grilliches Zvi (1979) ‗Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and
Development to Productivity Growth‘, The Bell Journal of Economics, 10,(1),92116.
Guellec D and Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B (2004) ‗From R&D to Productivity
Growth: Do the Institutional Settings and the Source of Funds of R&D Matter?
Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 66,(3),353-378.
Hagedoorn J, Link AN and Vonortas NS (2000) ‗Research partnerships’, Research
Policy, 29,567-586
Hewitt-Dundas, N (2009) The role of proximity in University-Business collaboration
for innovation, Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting, Las Vegas,
22-27 March
Iansiti M and Levien R (2004) ‗The Keystone Advantage‘, Harvard Business Press,
Harvard
Invest Northern Ireland, 2003. RTD Centres of Excellence. http://www.investni.com
Jarzabkowski P (2005) Strategy as practice: An activity-based approach. London,
UK: Sage.
Katz, JS and Martin, BR. 1997. What is Research Collaboration? Research Policy, 26
(1), p.1-18.
Lichtenberg FR and Siegel D (1991) ‘The Impact of R&D Investment on
Productivity-New Evidence‘, Economic Inquiry, 29,(2),203-230.
Link AN and Siegel DS (2005a) ‗University-based Technology Initiatives:
Quantitative and qualitative evidence‘, Research Policy, 34,253-257.
Link AN and Siegel DS (2005b) ‗Generating science-based growth: an econometric
analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology
transfer‘, The European Journal of Finance, 11,(3),169-181.
Love JH and Roper S (2001) ‗Location and Network Effects on Innovation Success:
Evidence for UK, German and Irish Manufacturing Plants‘, Research Policy,
30,(4),643-661.
Oughton C, Landabaso M and Morgan K (2002) ‗The regional innovation paradox:
innovation policy and industrial policy‘, Journal of Technology Transfer, 27,97-110.
Roper S, Love JH, Ashcroft B and Dunlop S (2000) ‗Industry and Location Effects on
UK Plants‘ Innovation Propensity‘, Annals of Regional Science, 34,489-502.
24
Rothwell, R (1994) Towards the fifth-generation innovation process. International
Marketing Review 11 (1):7-31.
Szulanski G (1996) ‗Exploring Internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best
practice within the firm‘, Strategic Management Journal, 17,27-43.
Tether, B.S. (2005) Do services innovate (differently)? Insights from the European
innobarometer survey, Industry and Innovation, Vol. 12, pp. 153-184
Verspagen B (1999) ‗Large firms and knowledge flows in the Dutch R&D system: a
case study of Philips Electronics‘, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management,
11,211-233.
Veugelers R (1997) ‗Internal R&D Expenditures and External Technology Sourcing‘,
Research Policy, 26,303-315.
Veugelers R and Cassiman B (1999) ‗Make and buy in innovation strategies: evidence
from Belgian manufacturing firms‘, Research Policy, 28,63-80.
Vinnova (2004) Impacts of the Swedish Competence Centres Programme - 19952003. VA 2004:03.
Zahra SA and George G (2002) ‗Absorptive capacity: a review, re-conceptualization,
and extension‘, Academy of Management Review, 27,185-203.
25